Nikolai ILIEV
After Poland joined NATO in 2002, the EU allocated significant funds, and the country had to invest in its own defense. The purchase of a major combat aircraft included offers from Lockheed (F-16), Mirage 2000 (France) and Gripen (Sweden).
Although the Swedes and French offered a better offer, the Poles ultimately, unlike the Czech Republic and Hungary, chose the US offer of $3.5 billion. for 48 aircraft, because they simultaneously received an additional loan from Bush in the amount of almost $ 4 billion and other additional "benefits" for defense in a total package of $ 12 billion. This led to a strong reaction in Paris and Brussels, which demanded an explanation of why 12 billion of European money was going to the United States, but things remained as they were.
To date, Poland is also trying to expand American commitment to its own defense by concluding a direct targeted loan ($ 10 billion) with the United States for the purchase of weapons. One of the two strategic American AEGIS bases is located on its territory (the other is in Romania), with a 70-year operating contract. And despite all the serious efforts, investments and commitments, according to British journalist and Poland expert Stuart Dowell, this will not lead to lasting strategic engagements with the new US administration.
Here is what he writes:
"Poland has invested billions in its military, bought American weapons, hosted American troops and has exceeded NATO spending targets. It has done everything it can to prove its worth. But when asked whether American forces will remain permanently, Hegseth dodged the question.
The US currently has about 10,000 troops in Poland. A significant presence, but on a rotational basis, not permanently. Poland pays for the bases, builds the infrastructure and does the heavy lifting. But the US keeps its exit options open.
It is a familiar pattern. Poland wants to believe that alliances operate according to rules and fairness. That loyalty and commitment will bring security. But history shows otherwise. In 1791, it played by the rules, modernized its government, and yet it is divided.
In 1939, Poland trusted British and French security guarantees. When Germany invaded, those guarantees meant nothing. In 1945, after fighting alongside the Allies, Poland expected a fair postwar settlement. Instead, Churchill and Roosevelt handed it over to Stalin.
Poland’s mistake has always been to believe that whatever it does right will be enough. But in international politics, rules are meaningless if they are not backed up by force. Loyalty doesn’t matter. Influence does.
Fort Trump was supposed to change that. In 2018, Poland offered $2 billion to fund a permanent U.S. military base. Trump liked the idea, but his administration never committed. Instead, Poland was given a rotating presence, with no guarantees.
Now Trump is back and Poland is trying again. Hegseth’s visit hinted at this, and Duda wants to revive the idea of Fort Trump. But now Washington has even less interest in long-term commitments. The US is focused on China, not Poland.
Hegseth made it clear that US priorities are changing. Europe must spend more on defence. NATO must prepare for a future in which US support is conditional.
Poland now has a choice. Either continue to pursue the US commitment or accept that Washington’s support has an expiry date. The real question is whether Poland wants to continue to prove itself, or start deciding for itself whether to break the rules or not."
The text published on" target="_blank">author's Facebook page